The Right's Trying to Spin Hatred for LGBT People

The Right's Trying to Spin Hatred for LGBT People:
Often we must ask, "What are the stupidest cockknobs who are treated as relevant to the political conversation in this country saying about this thing I care about?" For, indeed, it is by seeing what the stupidest cockknobs are saying that we'll learn what the talking points of cockknobbery will be. When it comes to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's veto of the "My Bigoted Religion Trumps Your Civil Rights" bill, oh, the white, male cockknobs were beside themselves with rage.

Erick "Erick" Erickson, bejowled, self-flogging friar of the RedState blog and Fox "news" contributing thumb head, got his Christian panties in a wad in the crack of his pasty ass: "In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man... if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business." It's like Jim Crow, says Erickson and many others. That is some quality, hyperbolic bugfuck crazy right there. Why not add, "And the government will lynch that black man for not serving the white man"?

But, wait, did you know that businesses owned by Christians have a duty to spread the word of Christ? Preach, Brother Erick "Erick": "Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work they can share the gospel and glorify God...Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith." This is a motherfucker of a conundrum. So when the Rude Pundit goes to the bodega on the corner that has a Virgin Mary candle in the window to buy rolling papers and porn, he's getting actively ministered to? The woman behind the counter should probably say more than "Thank you" while taking his money.

Erickson offers up the example of a florist who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding, even though they had been good customers prior to their desire to get married. So if that flower shop caught on fire and married gay firefighters showed up to put it out, wouldn't she have to let it burn? Wouldn't that be a test of her faith, God being a tricky bastard that way? Goddamn, this is just too hard. What would Rush Limbaugh do?

Glad you asked. Because that avatar of basic manly heterosexuality himself has been spouting Limbaughly about how the poor, religious homophobes are being bullied by the mean old gays and liberals. (Quick. Someone make an "It Gets Better" video for conservatives. On second thought, don't.) Spaketh Rush, "They're just loving, kind, soft-spoken, gentle people who just want everybody to get along -- except when you don't agree with them, and then they become like jackbooted thugs, and they start bullying everybody in their way. They become highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it, and tolerant of only one point of view: Their own."

The Rude Pundit's pretty sure that Limbaugh knows the definition of "bullying" since most dictionaries feature his picture next to the word (it's also there under "bullshit" and "bovine"). But since when is "bullying" defined as "telling the people who think your existence is disgusting and want to isolate you from the rest of society that they're wrong"? Probably since a black guy got elected president and started "bullying" everyone (what the rest of us might call "leading").

By the way, the thing about jackboots is that it's hard as hell to find the right pants to go with them. Just saying.

But the problem really is that we're all just misinterpreting an innocent bill. The Family Research Council (motto: "Selectively choosing who Jesus loves") wants us to know that the left has just spread wrong information because SB 1062 didn't mention "gays" at all: "All SB 1062 did was ensure the government couldn't force business owners to violate their religious beliefs. If that's controversial, then so is the First Amendment." Yes, the First Amendment isn't controversial at all. The fact that there's cases that get brought to the Supreme Court over its meaning is just an innocuous exercise in jurisprudence. A little game, not a controversy.

What's annoying about all this is that the ones being misleading are the supporters of so-called "religious liberty" legislation. Just be honest, for chrissake. Stop hiding behind the skirts of religion. Stop obfuscating by minimizing its effects. Stop being such pussies. Just say, "Look, we hate fags and dykes. It's that simple." Terrible human beings though they were, at least the racists of the pre-Civil Rights Act days would just say, flat out, there's people they hate for being black.

This ain't about your faith. Are you not paying your taxes because the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages? No, you're helping fund benefits for those relationships you despise. Deal with it.